Rename "desirability" to "preference" (much less awkward), with the

[match/match.git] / paper / paper.tex

diff --git a/paper/paper.tex b/paper/paper.tex
index 7ce6770..fd0bd2c 100644 (file)
--- a/paper/paper.tex
+++ b/paper/paper.tex
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
 
 \usepackage[letterpaper,left=2.6cm,right=2.6cm,top=2.6cm,bottom=2.6cm]{geometry}
 
 
 \usepackage[letterpaper,left=2.6cm,right=2.6cm,top=2.6cm,bottom=2.6cm]{geometry}
 

-\usepackage{floatflt}

 \usepackage{pstricks}
 \usepackage{delarray}
 
 \usepackage{pstricks}
 \usepackage{delarray}
 


@@ -70,11 +69,11 @@ thirty to forty program committee members.
 From now on we will focus on the problem of assigning papers to
 reviewers. 
 We assume that each reviewer is given access to the
 From now on we will focus on the problem of assigning papers to
 reviewers. 
 We assume that each reviewer is given access to the

-list of papers to be reviewed, and gives each paper both a ``desirability''
+list of papers to be reviewed, and gives each paper both a ``preference''

 score indicating his/her level of interest in reviewing the paper and an
 ``expertise'' score indicating how qualified he/she is to evaluate the paper.
 score indicating his/her level of interest in reviewing the paper and an
 ``expertise'' score indicating how qualified he/she is to evaluate the paper.

-(Some organizations may choose to use a single set of scores for both
-desirability and expertise. We believe that making this distinction may better
+(Some organizations may use a single preference score and assume that it
+also indicates expertise. We believe that making the distinction may better

 model the real-world objective.)
 A reviewer may also declare a conflict of interest with a particular paper,
 meaning that he/she is forbidden to review the paper.
 model the real-world objective.)
 A reviewer may also declare a conflict of interest with a particular paper,
 meaning that he/she is forbidden to review the paper.


@@ -140,8 +139,8 @@ Flow can pass from $s$ through one or more of the nodes $r^t_i$ and
 one or more of the nodes $p^t_j$ to the sink to represent a review
 by reviewer $i$ of paper $j$.
 
 one or more of the nodes $p^t_j$ to the sink to represent a review
 by reviewer $i$ of paper $j$.
 

-Each paper has an edge of capacity $r$ to
-the sink, indicating that it needs $r$ reviews.  In general, these
+Each paper has an edge of capacity $q$ to
+the sink, indicating that it needs $q$ reviews.  In general, these

 edges will constitute the min cut, so any max flow will saturate them
 and thereby provide all the required reviews.  We take the min-cost
 max flow in order to provide the reviews in the ``best'' possible way.
 edges will constitute the min cut, so any max flow will saturate them
 and thereby provide all the required reviews.  We take the min-cost
 max flow in order to provide the reviews in the ``best'' possible way.


@@ -160,24 +159,24 @@ to a solution that loads one reviewer by $L$ and the other by $L+2$
 unless the load imbalance in the second solution is outweighed by
 other benefits.
 
 unless the load imbalance in the second solution is outweighed by
 other benefits.
 

-For each reviewer $i$ and proposal $j$, there is a unit-capacity edge from $i$
+For each reviewer $i$ and paper $j$, there is a unit-capacity edge from $i$

 to $j$ allowing that pair to be assigned, unless the reviewer declared a
 conflict of interest, in which case the edge is not present.  The edge cost is
 to $j$ allowing that pair to be assigned, unless the reviewer declared a
 conflict of interest, in which case the edge is not present.  The edge cost is

-based on the desirability value $d_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for proposal
+based on the preference value $a_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for paper

 $j$.  For values on the NSF scale of 1 (best) to 40 (worst), we chose the cost
 $j$.  For values on the NSF scale of 1 (best) to 40 (worst), we chose the cost

-function $(10 + d_{ij})^2$, in an attempt to provide an incentive to avoid
+function $(10 + a_{ij})^2$, in an attempt to provide an incentive to avoid

 really bad matched pairs without completely masking the difference between a
 good matched pair and an excellent one.  This choice seeks only to achieve a
 natural relationship between a linear preference scale as normally interpreted
 and the costs to be used in the optimization.  We realize that strategic
 really bad matched pairs without completely masking the difference between a
 good matched pair and an excellent one.  This choice seeks only to achieve a
 natural relationship between a linear preference scale as normally interpreted
 and the costs to be used in the optimization.  We realize that strategic

-reviewers will take the cost function into account in choosing what desirability
+reviewers will take the cost function into account in choosing what preference

 values to submit, in which case its form matters little.
 
 Alongside these purely additive per-review costs,
 we want to avoid an individual reviewer
 getting too many papers he/she does not like.
 With respect to a reviewer $i$, we classify papers as ``interesting'',
 values to submit, in which case its form matters little.
 
 Alongside these purely additive per-review costs,
 we want to avoid an individual reviewer
 getting too many papers he/she does not like.
 With respect to a reviewer $i$, we classify papers as ``interesting'',

-``boring'', or ``very boring'' based on their desirability values;
+``boring'', or ``very boring'' based on their preference values;

 the thresholds for these classes are currently
 the same for all reviewers.  The edge for reviewer $i$ and paper
 $j$ leaves from $r^1_i$ if $j$ is interesting, $r^2_i$ if $j$ is boring, or
 the thresholds for these classes are currently
 the same for all reviewers.  The edge for reviewer $i$ and paper
 $j$ leaves from $r^1_i$ if $j$ is interesting, $r^2_i$ if $j$ is boring, or


@@ -205,15 +204,15 @@ unit-capacity edge of cost $-c_1$ from $p^1_j$ to $p^3_j$.
 In addition to the bonus edges,
 there are edges of zero cost and unlimited capacity that reviews can follow
 from $p^1_j$ to $p^2_j$ and from $p^2_j$ to $p^3_j$ in order to reach the sink.
 In addition to the bonus edges,
 there are edges of zero cost and unlimited capacity that reviews can follow
 from $p^1_j$ to $p^2_j$ and from $p^2_j$ to $p^3_j$ in order to reach the sink.

-The choice to offer bonuses for two reviews was based on the value $r = 3$;
-this would be easy to change for other values of $r$.
+The choice to offer bonuses for two reviews was based on the value $q = 3$;
+this would be easy to change for other values of $q$.

 
 In the example in Figure~\ref{flow-fig},
 paper 1 is interesting to reviewer 1 and boring to reviewers 2 and 3.
 Reviewer 2 is expert on paper 1, with reviewers 1 and 3 merely knowledgeable.
 (Reviewer edges for paper 2 are not shown.)
 This illustrates how, in principle,
 
 In the example in Figure~\ref{flow-fig},
 paper 1 is interesting to reviewer 1 and boring to reviewers 2 and 3.
 Reviewer 2 is expert on paper 1, with reviewers 1 and 3 merely knowledgeable.
 (Reviewer edges for paper 2 are not shown.)
 This illustrates how, in principle,

-the desirability and expertise relations might differ.
+the preference and expertise relations might differ.

 Each is taken into account at a different stage of the construction.
 
 The cost of a flow (assignment) is the sum of its reviewer overload costs,
 Each is taken into account at a different stage of the construction.
 
 The cost of a flow (assignment) is the sum of its reviewer overload costs,


@@ -269,9 +268,9 @@ document may be browsed or downloaded at (NOT YET):
 There are currently two branches:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item \code{master} has the tool as originally designed for NSF, with no
 There are currently two branches:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item \code{master} has the tool as originally designed for NSF, with no

-distinction between desirability and expertise.
+distinction between preference and expertise.

 \item \code{popl2012} is the basis of the version used for POPL 2012.  The main
 \item \code{popl2012} is the basis of the version used for POPL 2012.  The main

-differences are that it has separate desirability and expertise, support for
+differences are that it has separate preference and expertise, support for

 ``fixing'' previously chosen reviewer-paper pairs (buggy, however),
 and the special ERC gadget.
 \end{itemize}
 ``fixing'' previously chosen reviewer-paper pairs (buggy, however),
 and the special ERC gadget.
 \end{itemize}